I was thinking of this case (Sharon Stevens) she was adopted by Bill and Cynthia Zelinski.. I decided to do a google search on them and came across this blog. Sharon Stevens spoke very highly of them, but this blog seems to make them out to be very abusive.. Who knows if it's true.. but I'm pretty sure it is the same Bill and Cynthia Zelinski since UM mentioned they would take in foster children regularly.The link is below...

http://homelessnessinbaltimore.com/2010/08/09/story-of-mark-schumann/

Wow very interesting to say the least. With a slight nod to the fact that anyone can make anything up on the internet, I have no reason to doubt this individual. I would just find it very bizarre for someone to make up such a story including attaching names to it.

I understand it's possible for two different people to have two very different reactions to the same person or persons but this seems like a bit of a stretch. Those are some pretty heavy allegations to say the least.

Wow very interesting to say the least. With a slight nod to the fact that anyone can make anything up on the internet, I have no reason to doubt this individual. I would just find it very bizarre for someone to make up such a story including attaching names to it.

I understand it's possible for two different people to have two very different reactions to the same person or persons but this seems like a bit of a stretch. Those are some pretty heavy allegations to say the least.
Yes,but a person alleging abuse should always be believed,and it would explain why the Zelynskis were reluctant to come forward initially in the Sharon Stone case,though I was unable to watch the Unsolved Mysteries segment.

Wow very interesting to say the least. With a slight nod to the fact that anyone can make anything up on the internet, I have no reason to doubt this individual. I would just find it very bizarre for someone to make up such a story including attaching names to it.

I understand it's possible for two different people to have two very different reactions to the same person or persons but this seems like a bit of a stretch. Those are some pretty heavy allegations to say the least.

I agree. ... they seemed like such loving and caring ppl... I dont believe his story... in my opinion he might not be mentally stable..of course, I could be wrong and im not here to judge the man.... just wanted to share this lil tidbit :)

Yes,but a person alleging abuse should always be believed,and it would explain why the Zelynskis were reluctant to come forward initially in the Sharon Stone case,though I was unable to watch the Unsolved Mysteries segment.

Well, a person alleging abuse should always have their claims investigated, but I don't agree with you that they should always be believed. I also don't know what you mean by the Zielinskis being initially reluctant to come forward.

As far as the article goes, what a steaming pile of crap that was. I highly doubt Sharon Stevens, who definitely was abused by her real father, and was bounced around from foster homes she didn't like, would speak so highly of the Zielinskis, going so far as to praise them on national television, if they were the monsters that this homeless bum and alcoholic makes them out to be. The guy clearly has mental issues stemming from his various risk-taking excursions.

How does a homeless guy have internet access anyways? And I thought the Zielinskis were a foster home, I never knew them to actually adopt children.

Well, a person alleging abuse should always have their claims investigated, but I don't agree with you that they should always be believed. I also don't know what you mean by the Zielinskis being initially reluctant to come forward.

As far as the article goes, what a steaming pile of crap that was. I highly doubt Sharon Stevens, who definitely was abused by her real father, and was bounced around from foster homes she didn't like, would speak so highly of the Zielinskis, going so far as to praise them on national television, if they were the monsters that this homeless bum and alcoholic makes them out to be. The guy clearly has mental issues stemming from his various risk-taking excursions.

How does a homeless guy have internet access anyways? And I thought the Zielinskis were a foster home, I never knew them to actually adopt children.

It's entirely possible that he is using a library computer or community center.

I think Sharon is telling the truth. Not only did she go through abuse under her father, but a family member actually killed her second child (that part of the segment still horrifies me and is never explained. Hopefully that family member was put in jail). I think Bill and Cynthia must have been incredibly good to her to have left such an impression upon her. This man makes the Zelinski's out to be monsters, but it seems hard to believe that they would be a complete 180 from how she described them. I don't want to say he's a liar, but I am really skeptical.

Yes,but a person alleging abuse should always be believed,and it would explain why the Zelynskis were reluctant to come forward initially in the Sharon Stone case,though I was unable to watch the Unsolved Mysteries segment.


The Zelinskis actually watched the broadcast and called the same night, leading to a reunion rather quickly. Could you be thinking of another case?

Respectfully snipped:


How does a homeless guy have internet access anyways? And I thought the Zielinskis were a foster home, I never knew them to actually adopt children.

There is a large continuum of what qualifies as homeless. He mentions living in a really nice shelter, so that could be where he gets internet access. I know people who were considered homeless who couch surfed at friends' places or headquartered out of their car. Also, it seems like every homeless kid in Portland, OR has a cellphone and a dog.

The Zelinskis actually watched the broadcast and called the same night, leading to a reunion rather quickly. Could you be thinking of another case?
You're right;I misread the article. But Mark Schumann should be believed;he has no motive for making up his story.

It is entirely possible that some children were treated well while others were abused.

If Mr. Schumann lived with the couple during a different time period, there could have been stressors in their lives that made them more prone to abuse during his tenure with them. (financial trouble, marital troubles, substance abuse)

Also, to state the obvious, Ms. Stevens was a girl and Mr. Schumann was a boy. Perhaps they only abused one gender children.

The difference in parental status may also contribute to a difference in treatment. Foster kids are more closely monitored and I believe the parents get more money. Don't want to bite the hand that feeds you, as it were.

In addition to all of that, there is also the difference in personal perspective. Perhaps they were both treated the same way, but Ms. Stevens was so used to much worse abuse that it seemed like a reasonable level of discipline to her.

This was always one of my favorite lost-loves segments. I've watched it many times and I have much difficulty believing that what this guy is saying is true. I really don't want to believe that it's true, and if it is, than my apologies go out to the guy, but after seeing this segment so many times, I just can't bring myself to believe it.

One thing I also wonder about: Even if there is any truth to what this guy is saying, it would be interesting to know what his behavior as a kid was like. Now, I'm not in any way saying that he deserves to be abused, but even people that are generally considered nice can be pushed over the edge if the kid was a terror who was constantly making their lives miserable.

This was always one of my favorite lost-loves segments. I've watched it many times and I have much difficulty believing that what this guy is saying is true. I really don't want to believe that it's true, and if it is, than my apologies go out to the guy, but after seeing this segment so many times, I just can't bring myself to believe it.

One thing I also wonder about: Even if there is any truth to what this guy is saying, it would be interesting to know what his behavior as a kid was like. Now, I'm not in any way saying that he deserves to be abused, but even people that are generally considered nice can be pushed over the edge if the kid was a terror who was constantly making their lives miserable.
It seems his brother and sister suffered similarly so it shouldn't be hard to corroborate his story,and by this account his cousin also realized what the Zelinskis were doing.http://homelessnessinbaltimore.com/2010/08/09/story-of-mark-schumann/

This was always one of my favorite lost-loves segments. I've watched it many times and I have much difficulty believing that what this guy is saying is true. I really don't want to believe that it's true, and if it is, than my apologies go out to the guy, but after seeing this segment so many times, I just can't bring myself to believe it.

Indeed. It's very hard to comprehend. Especially when you take into account that Sharon Stevens admitted when she first went to live with the Zelinskis, she was a bitter and angry girl who had just been shuffled around to several previous foster homes, and she wasn't exactly good company right off the bat.

The Zelinski's that this guy is describing wouldn't have put up with that attitude. But Sharon said they were calm, loving and actually wanted to know what her previous foster homes were like so they could build a better life for her and truly understand where she was coming from.

The two sides just don't match up at all. I know it's stretching it but could it be possible this is a different Bill and Cynthia Zelinski in California?

Indeed. It's very hard to comprehend. Especially when you take into account that Sharon Stevens admitted when she first went to live with the Zelinskis, she was a bitter and angry girl who had just been shuffled around to several previous foster homes, and she wasn't exactly good company right off the bat.

The Zelinski's that this guy is describing wouldn't have put up with that attitude. But Sharon said they were calm, loving and actually wanted to know what her previous foster homes were like so they could build a better life for her and truly understand where she was coming from.

The two sides just don't match up at all. I know it's stretching it but could it be possible this is a different Bill and Cynthia Zelinski in California?

I wouldn't suppose that it's absolutely impossible, but it would come as a pretty big surprise. And, even if there is another such couple, what are the chances that they would be the same kind of people (in that they take in foster children)? Either way, I really DON'T want to believe the guy.

I am not judging this man. If his blog is true, it seems like he has had a rough life. But I don’t believe him. The fact that he seems to have had some mental issues as well as the alcoholic issues kinda makes his story less creditable to me. Plus, the Zelinski’s were anxious to see Sharon again and had no problems reuniting with her on national tv. On camera, they seem like genuinely nice people.

I am not judging this man. If his blog is true, it seems like he has had a rough life. But I don’t believe him. The fact that he seems to have had some mental issues as well as the alcoholic issues kinda makes his story less creditable to me. Plus, the Zelinski’s were anxious to see Sharon again and had no problems reuniting with her on national tv. On camera, they seem like genuinely nice people.
They always do. We're having the debate in Britain right now about respectable middle-aged men who have done despicable things and I've lost count now of how many "nice" middle-class men have been charged.http://www.standard.co.uk/panewsfeeds/stuart-hall-child-abuse-predator-8600320.html

You're right;I misread the article. But Mark Schumann should be believed;he has no motive for making up his story.

And Sharon Stevens has a motive for lying? Amazing that you believe his story right off the bat without any further info on the matter.

One thing I also wonder about: Even if there is any truth to what this guy is saying, it would be interesting to know what his behavior as a kid was like. Now, I'm not in any way saying that he deserves to be abused, but even people that are generally considered nice can be pushed over the edge if the kid was a terror who was constantly making their lives miserable.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

Most of you are potty yourselves if you take the course of "blame the victim not the perpetrator". The subject of abuse in all its forms is so evidently beyond you that I suggest you let go of this thread altogether and go and contribute to Leave It To Beaver.

Most of you are potty yourselves if you take the course of "blame the victim not the perpetrator". The subject of abuse in all its forms is so evidently beyond you that I suggest you let go of this thread altogether and go and contribute to Leave It To Beaver.

No need to get upset because we all have different opinions on this thread. I just wanted to share this since it mentions to memorable people who were featured on UM.

Most of you are potty yourselves if you take the course of "blame the victim not the perpetrator". The subject of abuse in all its forms is so evidently beyond you that I suggest you let go of this thread altogether and go and contribute to Leave It To Beaver.

Get lost. I always have sympathy for the victims, as I'm sure the vast majority of people contributing here do. But what you want us to do is to blindly accept this man's account of abuse from the hand of the Zielinskis, when, by all other accounts, they HELPED children, and sorry, that just isn't going to happen.

I don't know if I believe this guy. He seems to be the unluckiest guy in the world. He gets adopted by abusive (verbal, physical, and sexual abuse is alleged) foster parents, he was attacked by a grizzly bear as a child, floods, fires, earthquakes, and homelessness. And he also alleges that he had a "Cousin" who knew what the Zelinski's where doing to him and gave him a number to call if he needed help. If there were members of his family or other adults who knew that the Zelinksi's were abusive, why didn't they call the authorities to report them!?

Sharon Stevens' account is entirely different from this guy. Their accounts are so different from each other, one of them has to be fictional or extremely exaggerated. I tend to think this guy is exaggerating or just outright lying.

I don't know if I believe this guy. He seems to be the unluckiest guy in the world. He gets adopted by abusive (verbal, physical, and sexual abuse is alleged) foster parents, he was attacked by a grizzly bear as a child, floods, fires, earthquakes, and homelessness. And he also alleges that he had a "Cousin" who knew what the Zelinski's where doing to him and gave him a number to call if he needed help. If there were members of his family or other adults who knew that the Zelinksi's were abusive, why didn't they call the authorities to report them!?

Sharon Stevens' account is entirely different from this guy. Their accounts are so different from each other, one of them has to be fictional or extremely exaggerated. I tend to think this guy is exaggerating or just outright lying.

THIS is why I didnt believe him. He runs into a family member and they pretty much say "Hey I know u are getting abused, but that sounds like a personal problem, but here call this number for help." I really think he has mental issues and I have noticed a lot of homeless people have mental issues (some not all ). I think this story is probably exaggerated.

yeah, I was thinking the same thing.

I honestly believe that they could both be telling the truth. Or, at least, their truth.

I honestly believe that they could both be telling the truth. Or, at least, their truth.

This guy might be telling an exaggerated truth, or witholding information to make him look more like a victim. He may have been a problem child, which is why he was disciplined more than Sharon Stevens.

I really hope that doesn't happen!http://gawab.anvtech.com/6.jpg
http://gawab.anvtech.com/7.jpg
http://gawab.anvtech.com/8.jpg
http://gawab.anvtech.com/9.jpg

Why does every post made by this person in every thread all over Sitcoms Online say the exact same thing? If you look at the url behind the non-loading pics, it looks like this person is spamming for a free web hosting site.



So far, the others I've found doing this have the user names irenearris1, tamyfum0, and charlesot8, all claiming to be from London.

Why does every post made by this person in every thread all over Sitcoms Online say the exact same thing? If you look at the url behind the non-loading pics, it looks like this person is spamming for a free web hosting site.



So far, the others I've found doing this have the user names irenearris1, tamyfum0, and charlesot8, all claiming to be from London.

I also found this post to be odd but didnt really pay much attention to it until now...

Why does every post made by this person in every thread all over Sitcoms Online say the exact same thing? If you look at the url behind the non-loading pics, it looks like this person is spamming for a free web hosting site.



So far, the others I've found doing this have the user names irenearris1, tamyfum0, and charlesot8, all claiming to be from London.

I've noticed that too. They say the exact same things in every one of their responses.

I just rewatched this segment. I hope they were not abusive
It's one of my favorite segments. Is Sharon still alive?

I don't believe it. I dug up the original link on the internet archive and much seems off.

Do many really have vivid memories from when they were 3?

If Cynthia was so abusive as to initiate beatings at the drop of a hat or under the guise of “This is for something you did and thought you got away with”, why wouldn't she have beat Sharon when she first arrived and was obstinate? Per this story, they beat his brother and sister (who were not quoted in the piece themselves), so apparently gender wasn't a factor.

Also per the segment the Zelinskis lived in Gardena, not Orange like he claims. With what little is available about the timelines Sharon's year there would have had to have come to an end almost immediately before this guy's family was "adopted" by them.
It stretches disbelief to think within a few months they lost a foster child, moved cities, both got career track jobs in another city, been approved to be guardians in the new district and then either adopted or fostered 3 kids. (She got away from her father in 59, spent time with another family before getting placed with the Zelinski's for a "year", taking this to 1960. This guy states he was born in 57 and also would have been 3 in 60. )

At 14 he escaped by calling a number a "cousin" slipped him if he needed help and he was placed in another foster family. This wouldn't have sparked some kind of investigation, leaving because he was abused? Or having the other siblings run away for being abused? Seems unlikely, and yet they had no problem calling up UM right after the show aired and filming a reunion in their home in Laguna Niguel.

Ultimately there's nothing in that article to foster the notion that he has no reason to lie. He's clearly led a very troubled life filled with substance abuse and mental health issues (and wild animal attacks?), and there could be a number of reasons someone in this state could come up with the scenario he described. Either imagined from his problems or to be malicious.

I cannot get the link to work. Can someone summarize? Please and thank you.

http://web.archive.org/web/20101010015150/http://homelessnessinbaltimore.com/2010/08/09/story-of-mark-schumann/

Maybe this guy's definition of "abuse" is some of the discipline the Zelinski's used. Sharon praised them for this. One example was the Zelinski's not giving Sharon total freedom when she was there. They set structure. Some misguided folks believe that parents who don't let their kids do every little thing they desire are abusive.

I just rewatched this segment. I hope they were not abusive
It's one of my favorite segments. Is Sharon still alive?

She likely is. Wouldn't she be in her early 60's? I forget the timeline for this case.

Maybe this guy's definition of "abuse" is some of the discipline the Zelinski's used. Sharon praised them for this. One example was the Zelinski's not giving Sharon total freedom when she was there. They set structure. Some misguided folks believe that parents who don't let their kids do every little thing they desire are abusive.


Except I'd have to think someone who was escaping a physically abusive situation with her father would have been "hell naw" to the Z's using any sort of physical "discipline" on her.

Except I'd have to think someone who was escaping a physically abusive situation with her father would have been "hell naw" to the Z's using any sort of physical "discipline" on her.


Yes,

I do not think the Zelinski's abused Sharon in any way (there is no way she would have tolerated that). I doubt they "abused" anybody. I'm thinking maybe they just set some ground rules (curfews, etc) for the alleged victim. In his mind, not giving him total freedom is "abuse".

Are the Zelinski's still alive?